Middle Buffalo

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) You have to have the $13 million to pay him... Considering the crowds haven't matched the 1st place for 100+ days of the season, it could be difficult. Cross your fingers and pray for a deep playoff run. Can't argue with the attendance being poor, but the Sox overhead can't be that bad. The Reinsdorf group bought the team in the early 80's, so they don't have a big payment (if any) to make. They also don't have a stadium payment to make because they didn't build the stadium. So, what are their costs? The way I see it, they get tv money, merchandising, tickets, parking, etc., and they only have to worry about making enough to pay the team, costs to operated the team, and team employees.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 4, 2012 -> 09:40 PM) Trade Youk back to Boston for Lester, lol. Exercising the option on Youk and bringing back AJ are looking more and more likely....as for Peavy, the numbers just don't make sense. And quite ironic that Middlebrooks is now out and they might have to play Lillibridge there. OK - Peavy might just feel like the Sox are the best team for him because they successfully helped him back from a major injury that really had no precedent in baseball. He's owed about $22M next year, but if the Sox feel he's healthy, they could buy him out of next year's contract for $4M, and negotiate a competitive 3 or 4 year deal with him. If the market is $15M/year for a guy his age, they could offer him $14.5M/year + the buyout, and he'd still be ahead.

As an out of town fan, my biggest problem with the Sunday line-ups in the past has been that the Sunday game is often televised, and I get to watch Rob Mackowiak and friends play baseball. I'd rather see the manager sit guys in a more staggered way and field the strongest possible line-up each game.

Bar - Robin. Club - Ozzie. Can't understand anyone in a club anyway.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 3, 2012 -> 08:18 PM) I have the same experience he has. The revenue per goes way down. Overall increase possibly just by sheer numbers in the park, but it's diminishing returns. So if you already "lost" money on tickets or parking, you aren't making up for it with the merchandise (or possibly food). That's kind of what I figured - a dip in revenue per person. Still, selling (practically giving away) the upper deck seats for $5-10 per game is a decent idea just to fill up the park even if there isn't an uptick in concession sales. Creating an atmosphere in the park, maybe making new fans who come more often/upgrade to better seats in the future - not bad things.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 3, 2012 -> 07:28 PM) When I worked for a minor league team, the assumption was always that free/discounted tickets led to lower sales of souvenirs and concessions... Really? Why? It seems to me that more people going to the games would increase concessions sales.

Attendance is a problem throughout sports. Sometimes the problem is masked by the size of the fan base, though. Watch a regular season NBA game in most cities and you'll see plenty of empty seats - often the ones closest to the court. Watch a Yankees or Dodger game (traditionally two of the highest attendance fan bases) - empty seats right behind home plate. Teams have priced out the regular fan in favor of corporations. The Dodgers have the 6th highest attendance this season, but if you watch one of their games the park is empty most nights. http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance Remember, attendance is tickets sold, not actual people in the seats, and the White Sox probably don't rank favorably in season ticket sales when compared to other large city teams. There are plenty of empty seats at Cubs games every night. When a team has a waiting list for season tickets, though, it's hard to see that fans are disastisfied because for every fan who decides they've had enough, there's another happy to take that seat. Consider, then, what it takes to have empty seats at Wrigley. I'm going to make up the numbers, but I don't think they're a huge stretch: Let's say there are 1 million baseball fans in the Chicago area who go to at least one game per year. I don't think it's crazy to say that 75% of those fans are Cubs fans, 25% Sox fans. I actually think this percentage is probably generous to the Sox. So, 250K fans go to one or more Sox games per year, and 750K go to at least one Cubs game. That's their available fan base for each game. So, if the Cubs have 35,000 fans at a game, 715,000 fans have made the choice not to go. If the Sox, have 20K fans at a game, 230,000 fans have chosen not to go. When the Cubs were filling up the park every night, it was just assumed that their fans were more loyal and the Sox fans had to have a winning team on the field to get them to the park. What's the reason for the empty seats now? It's not 3-5K fans that aren't going to every Cub game now, though their attendance figures would tell you that they're at 90% capacity for every game. It's 715K fans who've chosen not to come to games. Is it because the Cubs are bad? Is it the economy? Who knows? However, one thing for sure is that the Cubs are having a hard time getting they're fans to the games, too. They're saved by having a HUGE fanbase both locally and nationally. Wrigley Field, love it or hate it, is a destination for people coming to the city in the summer. The Cell is not. But empty seats at Wrigley, be it 1K or 15K, are a huge red flag that Cubs fans are fed up. Maybe they're sick of losing, maybe they're sick of being gouged for their loyalty. I think the idea of deeply discounting tickets to create a buzz and fill up the our park is brilliant. The Sox economy is simply not the same as the Cubs, so they should quit competing for the same fans. It's simple supply and demand. Large demand for Cubs tickets allows for higher prices (though I think they might have finally reached the max. point). The Sox don't have the same demand. Sell tickets cheap. Get the young fan who doesn't have $140 for a bleacher seat to come to the park and return again and again. Get the casual fan. Get the older fan who remembers when baseball was affordable and simply doesn't consider going to games anymore. Get them back. If you get the fans in the park cheaply, they will buy food and drink, and they will return. The Arizona Diamondbacks do a great ticket deal. $19 for a bleacher seat, a hot dog, a drink, and a coupon for another drink. http://arizonashoppingsecrets.blogspot.com...tickets-19.html That's a pretty good value. The Sox have to think this way. The Charlotte Bobcats are offering a 2 for 1 season ticket deal. Buy 2012-13 season tickets and get 2013-2014 season tickets for free. http://www.nba.com/bobcats/1213_seasontickets.html That's what small market teams (or teams with newer fan bases like the Rays, Marlins, and Diamondbacks) have to do to fill up the park and create a fanbase. Sadly, the Sox have a small fan base, and they have to appeal to fans in this way also. If you're having trouble drawing fans, you need to be creative. If season ticket holders get upset (and they might), sweeten their deal a little. Offer them coupons or something reasonable to let them know they're valued. I hope the Sox are still offering the $5 tickets when I get to Chicago in July. Put me down for five. Drinks on me.

What percentage of fans who attend at least one baseball game in the greater Chicago area are Cubs fans? 75%? 80%? More?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 23, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) They aren't filling it consistently now. They sold out only 1 of 3 against the Sox. So, on ESPN 1000 in the past two days, I've heard: 1) Harry Teinowitz muttering about Hawk pointing out the empty seats "over and over" (Monday) 2) Bruce Levine blamed the empty seats on Sox fans not buying enough tickets to the "Crosstown" games (Monday) 3) And the first hour of Waddle & Silvy on Tuesday taking calls from listeners who don't go to games but follow the team on tv, radio, internet, etc. because tickets are too expensive and the team stinks. Aren't those Sox fan arguments? By the way, $140 for a bleacher seat for their premium games? That's crazy. http://purchase.tickets.com/buy/MLBEventIn...ts-HotTix-Games

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 11, 2012 -> 08:32 AM) Chris "Birdman" had child pr0n. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/c...html?ref=sports There's something really wrong with the nature of the investigation being released prior to any charges being filed. Even IF Anderson is found not guilty, he'll never recover. I don't have much compassion for him if he is involved in child porn in some way, but the information leaking out so quickly is really unfair.

We have a separate can/day for recycling that's included in the fees for garbage pickup. Everyone in the neighborhood (as far as I can tell) participates. They take just about everything, but not plastic store bags. I drop those off at the grocery store, and they recycle them. Cardboard and paper go to the church, and they get money for recycling it. I take the cans and any other metal to a place that pays for metal recycling. Kind of a pain, but I feel guilty just throwing everything into the trash barrel.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 06:00 AM) The problem is some people do not listen to anything their "opponent" in a discussion says, so they learn and take nothing from the discussion. A little more of this would go a long way in making this a better forum.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 22, 2012 -> 01:03 PM) The question is: What will Hawk nickname him and I could see him use Humburglar. Yuk. Hawk isn't using "Tank" anymore, so I vote for that.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) The loudest voices in almost every forum or subforum are moderators. Two factors to becomming a mod is longevity and how active you are. So we are active and have posted a lot for a long time. I should add that I actually like this subforum, but being active and posting a lot isn't a license to break the rules. 1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly 3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons) 4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others 5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point I could find numerous examples of these rules being broken again and again by the same people - people with 10K or more posts who differ politically and go around and around in almost every thread in the filibuster. It may be ok between the people involved, buts it's tiring when it's the same two people making the same handful of points repeatedly. You name the topic, and I pretty much know how the most active people in this subforum will feel before I even enter the thread. Just my two cents.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) Well, 1, I went for breakfast, and 2, I haven't had fast food since like January. My comment wasn't pointed at you, just McDonald's patrons in general. And it was a joke.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) Easyily one of my all time favorite Sox players. Tex Wortham? I guess that makes sense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 07:01 AM) IMO the only "rule" should be that if you're being an asshole and personally attacking someone (not with snide remarks, but actually something like "you're a f***ing idiot"), you're gone - suspended, banned after a while, whatever system the admns want to come up with. Everything else should be fair game. We're all adults here. We're not being forced to read/contribute. Since i've been a member (something like 2006), I've never really seen a "group" attack that would keep people from posting at all so I don't really see that as being a concern. But really the problem is the nature of the board. There are two major "political leanings," with one being completely dominated. So basically the discussion always gets drowned out by the numbers. That has killed most discussion, especially the last 4-5 months. Occasionally we'll have a fresh news story that can be debated (Martin), but otherwise as NSS says, we all pretty much know what people are going to say, so I find myself not posting something new just because I know exactly how the discussion will go. Bringing new blood in would be the best way to spice this area up, and I think making people agree to rules/restrictions really hinders that. I think it's common sense on message boards like this that if you're being a dick you're going to get banned/suspended. And if that comes as a shock to someone they'll learn pretty quickly I think. The snide remarks are no less antagonistic than just coming out and saying "you're a f***ing idiot." The forum is dominate by 5-8 people who are hardcore in their leanings and rarely, if ever, concede a point. There is very little discussion, just a pissing contest. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in these "discussions" are often moderators.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) Well, this worked out well. Was at the drive-thru at McDonalds today when the belt popped off. Don't know how I was able to make it home. Lost power steering and everything. Gotta get it fixed now. s***ty. That wasn't the first, and it won't be the last belt that pops after a trip through the McDonald's drive-thru.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 15, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) Take 2 of 3 every series you got 90 plus wins I will take it. 2 of 3 would actually be 108 wins. I'm not trying to be a jerk, either. I was going to post somewhere after the first five games, when they were 3-2, that they were on pace for 97 wins. A 3-2 or 6-4 record doesn't seem that impressive, but if you break the season down in 5 or 10 games at a time, that's all you have to do to win the division. I've thought all along that the starting pitching, IF Peavy is healthy, is good enough to win. Combined with Beckham, Rios, and Dunn improving somewhat over last year, and I don't think playoffs is totally out of the question. Four pretty big ifs, though.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 14, 2012 -> 04:06 AM) I am thinking about how to tie a thesis into soxtalk. There has to be a Comp and Rhetoric thesis in here somewhere. I'm not sure how you'd do it, but the most interesting aspect of Soxtalk for me is how seemingly innocent topics get sideways in a hurry. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56397

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 12, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) Does anyone really bring laptops or iPads to games? I sat in the scout seats a few years ago, and the guy in the M&Ms jacket brought his laptop. He was on it the entire game. He also stood up and turned around and looked at the fans behind him and the announcers booth between every half inning. Really annoying to sit behind.

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 07:26 PM) I liked Marion but favorite player? lol, what made you like him so much? He was the American Football version of Jacko.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) @QBKILLA Just Heard Who The Snitch Was Is it just me, or as a member of the media shouldn't Warren Sapp drop this persona? Snitch? really? Especially since he doesn't really know for sure that Shockey "snitched." He says he heard it from someone he trusts. It's basically a rumor that Sapp thinks is okay to go public with. Nice ethics. I can't get the yahoo headline out of my head, "Warren Sapp fingers Jeremy Shockey as the Saints’ bounty snitch."

It's dumb, but "Appreciate the Game" > "Baseball is Better..."

iPod is up and running. Thanks for the advice.